Bill A. Duffy, Inc. v. Scott
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte granting in part and denying in part 69 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (edllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2009)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On January 28, 2009, Defendant filed a renewed motion to extend the fact discovery cutoff to February 27, 2009, primarily to conduct the depositions of David Griffin, Megan Compain and Julie Neumann. Plaintiff filed an opposition to this motion on February 2, 2009. This matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument. As described in the Court's December 18, 2008 Order Denying Without Prejudice Defendant's Motion to Extend Fact Discovery Cutoff Date, the fact discovery cutoff date has already been extended once with agreement by all parties, and the Court gave Defendant leave to take additional limited discovery after that date. The Court also stated in that Order that the Court was not inclined to grant any further continuances absent "strong good cause." See Dec. 18, 2008 Order at 2. Defendant now seeks extension of the fact discovery cutoff date to February 27, 2009. Defendant primarily argues that an extension is necessary to take the depositions of Mr. Griffin, Ms. Campain and Ms. Neumann based on statements made by Plaintiff at his January 22, 2009 v. MERLE SCOTT, Defendant. / BILL A DUFFY, Plaintiff, No. C-08-00878 EDL ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION TO EXTEND FACT DISCOVERY CUTOFF DATE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
deposition. It appears, however, that these three individuals had important roles in the events that gave rise to this lawsuit and that Defendant was aware of them well before the January 22, 2009 deposition of Plaintiff. As was the case when Defendant previously sought to extend the fact discovery cutoff, it appears that the inability of Defendant to complete this discovery in a timely manner was essentially due to Defendant's counsel's lack of diligence. However, neither party has made initial disclosures so neither party is fully aware of the other's witness list. Moreover, the Court notes that the parties had previously agreed to extend the discovery cutoff date to February 17, 2009. Therefore, on balance, the Court grants in part Defendant's renewed request for an extension of the discovery cutoff date. The discovery cutoff date is extended to permit Defendant to take one additional deposition only. In all other respects, Defendant's renewed request for an extension is denied. The deposition shall take place as soon as possible and at a time and place that is convenient for both the witness and Plaintiff's counsel. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 10, 2009 ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?